The Iconic American

[steve_mareno1]

<p>Very nice presentation, and the shots are really very nice, but....</p>

<p>I've tried to like these cameras. They're certainly icons, but to me they represent the worst of US manufacturing quality. Stupid low tech design, so-so image quality, cheap materials, and a shutter that belongs on a toy. We made Pintos and Edsels, but I don't want one of those either (nor a Fiat). I'll take a good old US Kodak Retina (made in Germany, of course) any day.</p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Beautiful work <strong>Rick</strong>. Only you could make the C3 look desirable.</p>

[gabor_szabo3]

<p>Your stunning presentation epitomizes what can be accomplished with a practical, functional picture-taking machine and a true master behind the lens.<br>

I especially love the classic highboy coupephoto..... it made my morning!</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>It is easy to judge a 70 year old design, and hold it to today's ideals. Try looking at this from a 1939 perspective.</p>

<p>The designers were limited by the available materials and manufacturing methods of the late 1930's. Things that we take for granted today, like plastics, injection molding, CNC machining, and investment casting. Had not been invented in 1939. Most important of all: they tried to make the cameras affordable.</p>

<p>Henry Ford's first cars weren't very "ergonomic" either. But like the Argus, they were clumsy and ugly , but both got the job done.</p>

<p>In 1939 cameras such as Leica, were certainly more svelte, and compact. But no one can marvel at their "ease of use". Loading , and their separate finders were both slow to use.</p>

[mfophotos]

<p>Rick:<br>

Good results, and I like the "Harvest" shot the best. Since I live in Ann Arbor, and am intimately acquainted with all things Argus, I think your view of the camera is fair. But as Steve Levine points out, there are reasons for the Brick being the way it is. I don't know how many C models have passed through my hands -- probably close to 100, and probably 90% of them still worked as they should. On the other hand, I can't say the same reliability for any camera made in Europe or Japan, except maybe the Nikon F and the Pentax Spotmatic (but of course, they are not as old). I generally have admiration but not love for the Brick. My favorite Argus is the C-4, which looks like a camera and has nice clean lines. <br>

My local camera club, the A3C3, opens a new exhibit tonight, which is at the Argus Museum in Ann Arbor. </p>

<p><a title="Done. by mfophotos, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8472/8413050590_5726f14425_n.jpg" alt="Done." width="320" height="253" /></a></p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Good to see a variety of responses! I suspected the C3 is a camera that tends to polarize photogaphers into the "love it or hate it" camps, but we all seem to have rational likes or dislikes about it. I think<strong> Steve L</strong>. and <strong>Mark</strong>'s position of "admiration, not love" for The Brick would sum up my attitude; it was a solid, reliable and affordable machine, made in the USA, and very much part of the culture. As such, I guess it deserves it's little pedestal in photographic history. Point taken regarding the Speed Graphic,<strong> Roger</strong>, and I enjoyed your witty denunciations, <strong>Steve M</strong>, <strong>Ken</strong> and<strong> Craig</strong>. Nice recollections, <strong>Chris</strong> and <strong>John</strong>, and <strong>Dan</strong>, I had a sister who once elected to learn the violin and I suspect this contributed to my decision to leave home and set up flat with a couple of friends. Do you still play the cello? It takes similar fingering to play The Brick...</p>

<p>Interesting comment regarding negative film and slides,<strong> JDM</strong> and <strong>James</strong>. I tend to forget just how huge "slides" were, as I worked mainly in negative or medium format transparency, and avoided "slide evenings" like the plague. Ah, <strong>Tony</strong>, how few of us can relish the flavour of a fresh Broad Bean, now they're well and truly off the list of commercial varieties. Along with the first tender spears of asparagus, they mark a high point in my culinary year. And many thanks for your kind comments,<strong> Kayam</strong> and<strong> Gabor</strong>; as for the coupe...Well, I saw it first...</p>

<p> </p>

[Julio Fernandez]

<p>I have used a C3 and tend to agree with this presentation. The image quality is not bad, if used correctly. It is a very easy camera to service (probably the easiest classic 35mm around). Ergonomics are horrendous, which means that you are expected to adapt to the camera.<br>

And nobody mentioned, the Brick appears in Harry Potter's films. I got some points with my children for that.</p>

 

[steve_levine]

<p>The most amazing thing is that these were made for 27 years! Even Nikon's longevity king the F3, was only made for 21 years.</p>

<p>I would guess that the C3 holds this record? What other camera model was made continuously for that long?</p>

<p>During this time Leica introduced probably ten different models? And Canon, fugetaboutit. They made so many different model RF's in the 50-60's, it boggles the mind.</p>

[ralf_j.]

<p>Love the pictures, and presentation of the camera, absolutely hate operating the C3. I have lost several skin layers to that focusing wheel. The film advance stop was corroded in mine, so I had to toss it. Did not shed any tears.</p>

[dave_g1]

<p>I'd be surprised if your C3 was actually a 1958 model. I have a 1959 model and it lacks the bulb symbol on the shutter dial. I had always assumed that the bulb symbol must have been added later then.<br /> <img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6200/6127492043_c247fbfe28_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="430" /><br>

Edit: your serial number corresponds to 1961, not 1958. <a href="/users/philster/Argus/DatingYourArgus.htm#C3B">http://www.photo.net/users/philster/Argus/DatingYourArgus.htm#C3B</a> </p>

<p> </p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Thanks <strong>Dave</strong>, I used the same source as you to date the camera, and it's a little confusing. Here's the section I used ; I got as far "1921.." but I lack the "8".</p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>Standard C-3s with serial numbers starting with 19218... were made in the first quarter of 1958.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>The section dating the Match-Matics confirms the 1961 date</p>

<p>Thanks, <strong>Ralf</strong>, I'd agree about the sore finger tip, and<strong> Julio</strong> and <strong>Steve</strong> for your input.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>I actually think it looks very cool. A true funkis camera.</p>

[dave_g1]

<p>I've found that it is hard to find 1960s C3s. I've been watching ebay for a 1966 for years, and I've never seen anything later than 1964 come up. I almost wonder if the factory was even still making C3s in 1966, or if they were just shipping out 65's or even 64's as 1966 models.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Awesome presentation as usual, Rick. Your example delivered some very nice photos. I sold my last C3 some time ago and can't say that I really miss it. I'll probably get another if I come across one for a bargain price, but I won't go looking for one. Thanks for a great post!</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>You're right, <strong>Ann</strong>; one of our local galleries features one in a steampunk display. I don't think I'll be watching out for another one,<strong> Dave</strong>, but that's an interesting observation regarding the dates. Thanks,<strong> Andy</strong>, I'm glad you enjoyed the post. Even a bargain price probably wouldn't tempt me, though I would quite like a two-tone Matchmatic with accessory meter and that huge flashbulb holder. Hmmm...</p>

[william_vickers1]

<p>Excellent thread about one of the great ugly ducklings of photography! Despite its ergonomic awfulness the Argus C3 brought affordable 35mm photography to millions of Americans. That is quite an achievement.</p>

[jason_withers]

<p>I've seen these cameras at several antique malls and thrift shops, but never seem to find a working example and the lens seems to always have been attacked by fungus. It is an interesting looking camera..just like a brick. I also have to agree, give me a Kodak Retina any day.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>Wasn't Minolta's X-700 made until 1999? That's when I bought mine. IIRC They came out in 1981 so they are another long-produced icon.</p>

[thomas_dannhauser]

<p>There is a wonderful letter on Stephen Gandy's website CameraQuest: "Dad owned a C-3". For someone like myself used to in-camera meetering and now autofocus (and yes, digital!), this description of the technique and skill needed to reliably get good results from a C-3 is humbling and inspiring. Well worth the read.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Thanks,<strong> Thomas</strong>, I didn't discover the Camera Quest letter when I was looking for information on the C3. It's <em>certainly</em> worth the read! You're right, <strong>Patrick</strong>, and the X-300 may still be in production in China as one of the Seagull models. Mind you, <strong>Jason</strong>, a Retina was probably unaffordable to many of the people who bought the Argus, as <strong>William</strong> pointed out.</p>